Friday, February 6, 2009

Who Runs the Media?

Such as it is, the press has become the greatest power within the Western World, more powerful than the legislature, the executive and judiciary. One would like to ask; by whom has it been elected and to whom is it responsible? — Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

In the Oscar-winning 1976 movie Network,1 Howard Beale, the "mad prophet of the airwaves," becomes consumed with the idea of exposing an insidious danger facing America: the takeover of American television by Arabs through their petro-dollars.

The film was based on an Oscar-winning screenplay by Paddy Chayefsky, who depicts a dark plot by Arabs to buy and control the TV networks. Howard Beale, played by Peter Finch, is a deranged news anchorman who speaks his mind about any subject, resulting in skyrocketing ratings. Raving about the inequities and corruption in American life, Beale would cry out: "I’m mad as hell, and I’m not going to take it anymore!"

Imagine if Iraqi-American supporters of Saddam Hussein had control of the American media. Suppose they controlled the national television networks and were a majority of the owners, producers, and writers of television entertainment and news. TV is an irresistible power that reaches into every American home — the primary source by which most Americans learn about the world. Consider the dangers of that enormous power dominated by a tightly knit, Iraqi, Muslim minority that supported the Hussein regime.

If the non-television media were still free, they undoubtedly would treat Iraqi media domination as a great danger to America. Every non-Iraqi source of media would proclaim that such control threatens our freedoms. Congress would likely draft legislation to break up the Iraqi stranglehold on television. Patriots would remind Americans that if we were not free to obtain unbiased news, documentaries, and programming, democracy could not work. The power of TV controlled by one point of view would erode the foundation of all our freedoms: the freedom of speech. Pundits would be outraged that non-Americans, people with allegiance to a foreign power, had control over the American mind.

Taking the analogy further, imagine if the rest of the media were also in Iraqi hands. Suppose that the three major news magazines, Time, Newsweek, and U.S. News and World Report were run by Iraqis, that the three most influential American newspapers, TheNew York Times, TheWall Street Journal,and TheWashington Post — as well as a majority of the remaining major newspapers and magazines — were controlled by Iraqis. Imagine that Muslim Iraqis dominated the Hollywood movie industry as well as book publishing and even book distribution. Picture the Iraqis as also holding immense wealth in business and banking, as thoroughly entrenched in entertainment and Hollywood, academia, the judiciary, and the government. On top of all this, suppose that supporters of Saddam Hussein had the most powerful lobby in Washington and were responsible for the bulk of the fundraising of both the Democratic and Republican parties. Suppose a dedicated Iraqi was head of the National Security Council at the White House. Would such a situation be dangerous for America?

If Americans awoke one morning and found Arabic names scrawled all over their TV and movie credits, on their magazine and newspaper mastheads and in the pages of their books, millions would say, "We’ve been taken over!" Viewers would suspect the motives of everything they see on television and read in newspapers, magazines, and books. They would be especially wary of information about issues related to Iraqis, Saddam Hussein, Islam, and the Middle East conflict. In very short order, many Americans would cry out in the fashion of Howard Beale: "I am mad as hell, and I am not going to take it anymore!"

When I came to the realization that the original Russian Revolution was not Russian, that it was financed, organized, and led mostly by Jews who were driven by a centuries-old conflict between themselves and the Russian people, I wondered how such an important fact of history had been so effectively covered up. Upon learning fully about the Communist murder of millions of Christians in Russia and Eastern Europe, I asked myself why there were so few movies, dramatic television series or documentaries, novels, books, or magazine articles about it, but endless coverage of the Holocaust.

Then I read a copy of the Thunderbolt newspaper, published by Dr. Edward Fields of Marietta, Georgia.2 Dr. Fields carefully documented Jewish control of America’s three major television networks, NBC, CBS, and ABC. I carefully checked Dr. Fields' sources, which included biographies published by Jews.

At the time of my first inquiry, Richard Sarnoff was the head of NBC, William Paley was the head of CBS, and Leonard Goldenson ran ABC. I was amazed to learn that all three were Jews, all were active in Zionist organizations, and all had been honored by awards of numerous Jewish, Zionist, and pro-Israeli groups. Then I discovered that the leading newspaper in America, TheNew York Times, was Jewish-owned and -edited. So was the newspaper that has more influence on the federal government than any other, TheWashington Post. Jews also owned the largest circulation daily paper in America, The Wall Street Journal. They even owned my hometown newspaper, the New Orleans Times-Picayune.

I learned that Jews had dominated Hollywood for years. It was interesting to find out that of the "Hollywood Ten," who took the Fifth Amendment when asked before Congress whether they were Communists, 9 were Jewish. As I looked into magazine and book publishing, again I discovered a striking preponderance of Jews — most of them dedicated to Jewish interests, much like today’s Steven Spielberg, director of Schindler’s List, 3 who is an outspoken supporter of Zionist causes. In fact, the most-watched movie ever made about the Holocaust, viewed as history by millions, was entirely a Jewish production.

Years later I read Jewish publications that boasted about Jewish domination of American media. I also read An Empire of Their Own 4 by Neal Gabler, a book that details the Jewish takeover of the film industry.

Ben Stein, a Jewish screenwriter (and son of Herbert Stein, an economic advisor to President Richard Nixon), wrote the book The View from Sunset Boulevard. In it he candidly remarks that a great majority of Hollywood's television writers and executives are Jewish and that they are adamantly opposed to Christian values and the conservatism of traditional, small-town America.5 He wrote an article for E!-online in 1997 entitled: "Do Jews Run the Media" accompanied by a subtitle that read, "You bet they do — And What of it." 6

In the ’70s Dr. William L. Pierce, chairman of the National Alliance and editor of National Vanguard magazine, along with his staff, researched the question and documented the Jewish dominance in his essay "Who Rules America?"7

What I discovered was that the worst nightmare of Paddy Chayefsky and his Network character, Howard Beale, has been realized. A small but cohesive minority, with a 3,000-year loyalty to their own people and a fanatical dedication to their newly formed nation, dominates America’s media. But it is not the Arabs who have this power; nor is it the Irish, Germans, French, English, Russians, Swedes, Danes, or Italians. It’s not Muslims, Christians, Mormons, or Catholics. Ironically, it is the group made up of the Paddy Chayefskys of the world. Chayefsky — an enthusiastic supporter of Jewish causes and the state of Israel — cleverly attempts to influence viewers against Arabs by fictionally accusing them of attempting the same thing that Jews have already accomplished. The rest of the Network staff included director Sidney Lumet, producer Howard Gottfried, and editor Alan Heim. The same tribe that financed, produced, wrote and distributed the film Network, dominates the American media, and truly the media of the entire Western world.

Jewish media power is so extensive that one can scarcely exaggerate it. It is not simply a question of their power being disproportionate to their percentage of population — their power is breathtaking.

If you live in a major city, the daily newspaper you read will more than likely be Jewish-owned or -edited. So will the national newsmagazine you buy at the news counter. More than likely, the national cable or regular TV network you watch will be Jewish-owned, and if not, Jews will be preponderant in the executive and decision-making departments. The movie you see in the theater or watch on television will very likely have been produced, directed, or written by Jews — and often all three. The publishers of the hardbacks or paperbacks you read, even the record companies that produce the music you buy, will probably be Jewish-owned, and if not, they will very likely have Jews in key executive positions. Bookstores and libraries often select their new book purchases based on reviews by Jewish critics and publications such as The New York Times Book Review, another part of the Jewish-run NY Times.

It is certainly true that many people in media are not Jews. Nor do I allege that every Jew in media is part of some fantastic and intricate conspiracy or that every Jew is ardently Zionist. But the overwhelming domination and thrust of American media is Jewish, and no group is more ethnocentric and more organized for their perceived interests than are Jews. With these facts in mind, can any reasonable person believe that Jews present news and entertainment without a slant for their own purposes in what Gabler calls "An Empire of their Own"?

I grew up reading the New Orleans Times-Picayune, and from third grade on, I would read it every morning with my father. By the time breakfast ended, Father had decorated it with toast crumbs and coffee stains, and I had garnished it with oatmeal and milk. My father would take the news section first, and I would take the sports and the comics pages, and then it would be my turn to get into the headlines while he read the other parts of the paper. Up until the late ’50s, the Times-Picayune was truly a Southern newspaper. It reflected the values, standards, political viewpoints, and heritage of the South. We considered the paper our lifeblood of information about the simple goings-on around town and about the major events in the world at large. It was our paper — and not only because it was printed in our city; it represented something of our thinking, our culture, and our values.

When integration of schools began, the Times-Picayune railed against the federal intrusion into our way of life. Many articles talked about the amicable relationship between Blacks and Whites in New Orleans, about the excellent quality of life for Whites and Blacks, and about how the city included one of the largest Black entrepreneurial classes of any in America. It wrote about how, under White direction, Black educational and living standards had progressed over the last few decades. The editorial writers of the Times-Picayune predicted dourly that forced integration and the stirring up of Blacks by Yankees and liberal agitators would ruin one of the most beautiful and culturally rich and charming cities in the world. Integration, they maintained, would retard the progress of the Black community and threaten White standards.

After the purchase of the Times-Picayune by S.I. Newhouse, the paper gradually began to shift to the left. Integration was eventually depicted as "progress" and something that would increase "love" and "brotherhood." Editorials chastised those who opposed integration, referring to them as bigoted, hateful, and shortsighted. Integration, the paper claimed, would promote racial goodwill and lessen poverty and crime (which was then manageable). "What is the harm," the paper moralized, "with two little Negro girls going to a White school?"

As the city’s schools and government services began to disintegrate under integration and the Times-Picayune became increasingly liberal, my father — who was mildly conservative — came to dislike it. I still enjoyed the paper, and as I got older, I found myself agreeing with its racial viewpoints. I didn’t know that the Picayune was no longer a Southern newspaper, and that the owner, a Jewish refugee of Czarist Russia, resided in the New York city area.

When Newhouse died, he left a media colossus worth about $10 billion to his two sons, Samuel and Donald. Among their newspaper holdings were the Times-Picayune; the Syracuse, New York, morning Post-Standard and the afternoon Herald-Journal; the Mobile, Alabama, Morning Register and Afternoon Press; the Huntsville, Alabama, morning News and afternoon Times; the Birmingham, Alabama, morning Post Herald and afternoon News; the Springfield, Massachusetts, morning Union, afternoon News, and Sunday-only Republican.

The Newhouse empire today owns 12 television stations, 87 cable-TV systems, two dozen national magazines, 26 daily newspapers, and the Parade Sunday supplement that has a staggering circulation of more than 22 million.

When Newhouse bought the Times-Picayune, it was reported by Time magazine that he commented, "I just bought New Orleans." 8 In some ways, his statement is accurate. Newhouse and his employees could say anything they liked about any person or any issue with little fear of contradiction. Newhouse, secure in his monopoly, was free to push whatever social and political agenda he wished.

Even today, more than 25 years after Newhouse’s purchase of the Times-Picayune, many in New Orleans are unaware that a Jewish New York family owns the paper. The editorial page gives a local address and says the publisher is Ashton Phelps, a descendent of the family that once owned the paper.

When I was a teenager, just learning of the Jewish control of media, I noticed that many of the Picayune’s advertisers were Jewish-owned businesses, including Goldrings, Levitts, Mintz, Godchauxs (a French adapted Jewish name), Kirshmans, Rosenberg’s, Rubinstein Bros., Gus Mayer’s, Adler’s, and Maison Blanche. One of the biggest advertisers in New Orleans was Sears & Robuck, and Edith Stern, a New Orleans activist in Jewish and liberal causes, was Sears’ largest stockholder. I soon learned that many of the largest advertising agencies, both local and national, were under Jewish ownership and direction. These agencies could steer advertising to whatever newspaper or media outlet they desired.

Jewish advertising power not only has increased the Jewish monopolization and consolidation of American newspapers, it also greatly affects publications with Gentile management or ownership. All major publications are dependent on Jewish advertising revenue, so their features, reporting, and editorial policies must be carefully attuned to Jewish attitudes and interests. Ultimately, the free press is not free. It runs on money. The old axiom certainly holds true in the media: "He who pays the piper calls the tune."

At the beginning of this century, most major cities had two or three daily newspapers, and many had even more. There has been an alarming trend toward monopolization of daily newspapers. There are only about 50 cities in America with more than one daily newspaper, and many of those have the same parent company. The Newhouse-owned Times-Picayune and the afternoon States-Item aptly illustrate the trend; they merged into the Times-Picayune early and late editions.

As a result, of the 1,600 daily newspapers in America, only 25 percent are independently owned rather than part of a newspaper chain. And only a tiny number are large enough to have even a skeleton reporting staff based outside their own communities. They are dependent on newsgathering conglomerates such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, and the Newhouse chain for their national and world news.

The Jewish domination of American media is long-standing. Even as far back as the 1920s, Jews had influence far disproportionate to their percentage of the population. And even though media operations frequently change hands and the CEOs, chairmen, administrators, and top editors change, Jewish domination is stronger than ever — and the power brokers continue to increase and consolidate their power.

Three Powerful Newspapers

The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post are positioned at the heart of American business, culture, and government. Their influence reaches out across the nation. They originate news, focus on issues of their liking, elevate public figures they approve of and denigrate those they do not. They tell us what movies to see, what books and magazines to read, what records to buy and what art to admire. They influence how we think on a thousand different subjects — and, in fact, they frequently choose what subjects we think about at all.

The New York Times is read all over America — in academia, business, politics, the arts and literary world. It sets our political, social, entertainment, literary, artistic, and fashion standards. The New York Times Company owns 33 newspapers as well as three book-publishing companies, 12 magazines, seven radio and broadcasting stations, and a cable-TV system. The New York Times News Service serves more than 506 newspapers across America.

Like so many other newspapers, it began under Gentile ownership and ended up Jewish. George Jones and Henry Raymond founded the great paper in 1851. Near the turn of the century, Jewish activist Adolph Ochs bought the paper, and now his great-grandson, Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jr., is CEO and publisher. Executive and managing editors are Max Frankel and Joseph Lelyveld.

Because it is so widely read by Washington's elected and appointed federal officials and bureaucrats, The Washington Post has a huge impact on our government. It can influence appointments, firings, legislation, and foreign and domestic affairs of all kinds. It can even be instrumental in bringing down a president, as it did Richard Nixon. The bosses of The Washington Post can choose to give publicity to an issue or choose to ignore it, choose to be outraged about an event or bellow in approval. The Post has numerous holdings in newspapers, television, and magazines — most notably, Newsweek.

Like The New York Times, The Washington Post started out in Gentile hands. It was founded in 1877 by Stilson Hutchins and was later run by the McLean family. Due to the McLeans’ conservative policies, Jewish advertising shifted to the other Washington papers, driving the Post into bankruptcy. A Jewish financier, Eugene Meyer, stepped in to buy it for a trifling sum at the bankruptcy auction. As soon as it passed into Jewish hands, advertising from Jewish businesses and advertising agencies returned, and the newspaper returned to profitability.

In an effort at further consolidation of the media in our nation’s capital, the Jews ran an advertising boycott of Colonel Robert McCormick’s Times-Herald, which they detested because of its support for anti-Communist Sen. Joseph McCarthy. Unable to sell retail-advertising space, the newspaper shrunk dramatically and began losing about a million dollars a year and was finally sold to Meyer in 1954 at a bargain price. The Washington Post is now run by Meyer’s daughter, Katherine Meyer Graham, the principal stockholder and chairman of the board. Her son Donald is president and CEO.

The third leading influential newspaper in America, especially in the business realm, is The Wall Street Journal, published — along with Barron’s and 24 other daily newspapers — by Dow Jones & Company. The Wall Street Journal has a circulation of more than two million, making it America’s largest business daily and a tremendous influence on business, banking, trade, and economic issues. The CEO of Dow Jones and chairman and publisher of The Wall Street Journal is Peter R. Kann, a Jew.

The Three Most-Read Newsmagazines

Time, Newsweek, and U.S. News and World Report are the three major weekly newsmagazines published in the United States. The largest and most respected of these is Time, which has a circulation of more than four million. The CEO of Time-Warner is Gerald Levin, a Jewish benefactor of many Jewish and Israeli causes.

Newsweek is the second most widely read weekly, with a circulation of more than three million. It is under the control of the Washington Post's Katherine Meyer Graham, another avid supporter of numerous Jewish causes.

The third-ranking newsmagazine is U.S. News and World Report, whose owner, publisher, and editor in chief is Mortimer B. Zuckerman, a proud Zionist who also owns the Atlantic Monthly and the New York Daily News.

The Giants of Book Publishing

Book publishing is perhaps the part of American media least controlled by Jews. Yet they still dominate the most important parts of that industry. All one needs is a printer and some cash to publish a book, and tens of thousands of printers do business in America along with hundreds of small book publishers. Yet here too the Jewish influence is powerful, for writing a book, no matter how intelligent and provocative, offers no guarantee of it being published, and being published offers no guarantee of being professionally promoted, distributed, or even reviewed. The half dozen or so of the largest publishers and distributors handle 95 percent of the biggest-selling books in America. And in those areas of book publishing and distribution, Jewish appraisal is inevitable and Jewish approval is crucial.

According to Publisher’s Weekly, the three largest American publishers are Random House (and its subsidiaries, including the Crown Publishing Group), Simon & Schuster, and Time Warner Trade Group (including Warner Books; Little, Brown; and Book of the Month Club). Jews control two out of three and the third (Random House, has many Jews in important positions throughout its division of the conglomerate it has joined).

Gerald Levin is CEO of Time-Warner Communications, which owns Time Warner Trade Group. The other major media, Simon and Schuster, is a subsidiary of Viacom Inc. Viacom’s CEO and chairman is Sumner Redstone (born Murray Rothstein). Additionally, it should be noted that the largest publisher of children’s books, with more than 50 percent of the market, is Western Publishing, whose chairman and CEO is Richard Snyder, who just replaced another Jew, Richard Bernstein.

The Major Book Publishers and Reviewers

One of the most brilliant books of this century dealing with the weakening of the American majority is TheDispossessed Majority by Wilmot Robertson.9 This book is rich in research and ideas, and it is written with a command of the English language rarely seen today. But Robertson was unable to find a major publisher because he dared to write about the unmentionable subjects of race and Jewish ethnocentrism. No national or major publications would review his work, and no national distributors would handle it. Many national publications would not permit Robertson to buy advertisements for his book because it contained information unacceptable to the self-ordained Jewish censors. Despite its ban from the mainstream bookstores and not being reviewed by the major media critics, Robertson has sold well over 150,000 copies through the mail and by word of mouth.

Television

When I read the article by Edward Fields documenting the Jewish control of the three major TV networks, I was fascinated. ABC, CBS, and NBC produce the overwhelming majority of entertainment television broadcasts in America, and for most Americans they are the primary sources of news. Leonard Goldenson of ABC, William S. Paley of CBS, and David Sarnoff of NBC ran their respective networks for decades, setting the tone and breadth of the modern Jewish domination of broadcasting. Here is a condensation of Dr. William L. Pierce’s "Who Runs the Media" on the current state of American broadcasting.

Who Runs the Media? by Dr. William L. Pierce

Continuing government deregulation of the telecommunications industry has resulted, not in the touted increased competition, but rather in an accelerating wave of corporate mergers and acquisitions that have produced a handful of multi-billion-dollar media conglomerates of concentrated Jewish power.

The largest media conglomerate today is Walt Disney Company, whose chairman and CEO, Michael Eisner, is a Jew. The Disney empire owns Walt Disney Television, Touchstone Television, Buena Vista Television, its own cable network with 14 million subscribers, and two video production companies.

As for feature films, the Walt Disney Picture Group, headed by Joe Roth (also a Jew), includes Touchstone Pictures, Hollywood Pictures, and Caravan Pictures. Disney also owns Miramax Films, run by the Weinstein brothers, who have produced such ultra-raunchy movies such as The Crying Game, Priests and Kids.

In August 1995 Eisner acquired Capital Cities/ABC Inc., to create a media empire with annual sales of $16.5 billion. Capital Cities/ABC owns the ABC Television Network, which in turn owns ten TV stations outright in such big markets as New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, and Houston. In addition, it has 225 affiliated stations in the United States and is part owner of several European TV companies.

ABC's cable subsidiary, ESPN, is headed by president and CEO Steven Bornstein, who is a Jew. The corporation also has a controlling share of Lifetime Television and the Arts & Entertainment Network cable companies. ABC Radio Network owns 11 AM and ten FM stations, again in major cities such as New York, Washington, and Los Angeles, and has over 3,400 affiliates.

Time Warner Inc., is the second of the international media leviathans. The chairman of the board and CEO, Gerald M. Levin, is a Jew. Time Warner's subsidiary HBO is the country's largest pay-TV cable network.

Warner Music is by far the world's largest record company, with 50 labels, the biggest of which is Warner Brothers Records, headed by Danny Goldberg. Stuart Hersh is president of Warnervision, Warner Music's video production unit. Goldberg and Hersch are both Jews.

Warner Music was an early promoter of "gangsta rap." Through its involvement with Interscope Records, it helped popularize a new genre whose graphic lyrics explicitly urge Blacks to commit acts of violence against Whites.

In addition to cable and music, TimeWarner is heavily involved in the production of feature films (Warner Brothers Studio) and publishing. Time Warner's publishing division (editor-in-chief Norman Pearlstine, a Jew) is the largest magazine publisher in the country (Time, Sports Illustrated, People Magazine, Fortune).

Levin will again be the number-one media magnate when the planned deal with Turner Broadcasting System is completed. When Ted Turner, the Gentile media maverick, made a bid to buy CBS in 1985, there was a panic in media boardrooms across the nation. To block Turner's bid CBS executives invited billionaire Jewish theater, hotel, insurance, and cigarette magnate Laurence Tisch to launch a "friendly" takeover of the company, and from 1986 till 1995 Tisch was the chairman and CEO of CBS, removing any threat of non-Jewish influence there. Subsequent efforts by Turner to acquire a major network have been obstructed by Levin's Time Warner, which owns nearly 20 percent of CBS stock and has veto power over major deals.

If TBS merges with Time Warner, Levin will become Turner's boss, and CNN, the only rival to the network news, will come under complete Jewish control.

Viacom Inc., headed by Sumner Redstone (born Murray Rothstein), is the third largest megamedia corporation in the country, with revenues of over $10 billion a year. Viacom, which produces and distributes TV programs for the three largest networks, owns 12 television stations and 12 radio stations. It produces feature films through Paramount Pictures, headed by Jewess Sherry Lansing.

Its publishing division includes Prentice Hall, Simon & Schuster, and Pocket Books. It distributes videos through over 4,000 Blockbuster Video stores. It is also involved in satellite broadcasting, theme parks, and video games.

Viacom's chief claim to fame, however, is as the world's largest provider of cable programming, through its Showtime, MTV, Nickelodeon, and other networks. Since 1989, MTV and Nickelodeon have acquired larger and larger shares of the juvenile television audience. Redstone, who actually owns 76 percent of the shares of Viacom ($3 billion), offers Beavis and Butthead as teen role models and is the largest single purveyor of race-mixing propaganda to White teenagers and sub-teens in America and Europe. MTV pumps its racially mixed rock and rap videos into 210 million homes in 71 countries and is the dominant cultural influence on White teenagers around the world.

Nickelodeon has by far the largest share of the four-to-11-year-old TV audience in America and also is expanding rapidly into Europe. Most of its shows do not yet display the blatant degeneracy that is MTV's trademark, but Redstone is gradually nudging the fare presented to his kiddie viewers toward the same poison purveyed by MTV.

With the top three, and by far the largest, media conglomerates in the hands of Jews, it is difficult to believe that such an overwhelming degree of control came about without a deliberate, concerted effort on their part.

What about the other big media companies? Number four on the list is Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation, which owns Fox Television Network and 20th Century Fox Films. Murdoch is a Gentile, but Peter Chernin, who heads Murdoch's film studio and also oversees his TV production, is a Jew.

Number five is the Japanese Sony Corporation, whose U.S. subsidiary, Sony Corporation of America, is run by Michael Schulhof, a Jew. Alan J. Levine, another Jew, heads the Sony Pictures division.

Most of the television and movie production companies that are not owned by the largest corporations are also controlled by Jews. For example, New World Entertainment, proclaimed by one media analyst as "the premiere independent TV program producer in the United States," is owned by Ronald Perelman, a Jew who also owns Revlon cosmetics.

The best known of the smaller media companies, DreamWorks SKG, is a strictly kosher affair. DreamWorks was formed in 1994 amid great media hype by recording industry mogul David Geffen, former Disney Pictures chairman Jeffrey Katzenberg and film director Steven Spielberg, all three of whom are Jews. The company produces movies, animated films, television programs, and recorded music. Considering the cash and connections that Geffen, Katzenberg, and Spielberg have, DreamWorks may soon be in the same league as the big three.

Two other large production companies, MCA and Universal Pictures, are both owned by Seagram Company, Ltd. The president and CEO of Seagram, the liquor giant, is Edgar Bronfman, Jr., who is also president of the World Jewish Congress.

It is well known that Jews have controlled the production and distribution of films since the inception of the movie industry in the early decades of this century. This is still the case today.

Films produced by just the five largest motion picture companies mentioned above - Disney, Warner Brothers, Sony, Paramount (Viacom), and Universal (Seagram) - accounted for 74 percent of the total box-office receipts for the year to date (August 1995).

Westinghouse Electric Corporation recently purchased CBS. Nevertheless, the man appointed by Laurence Tisch, Eric Ober, remains president of CBS News, and Ober is a Jew.

At NBC, now owned by General Electric, NBC News president Andrew Lack is a Jew, as are executive producers Jeff Zucker (Today), Jeff Gralnick (NBC Nightly News), and Neal Shapiro (Dateline).1

The overwhelming Jewish control that Dr. Pierce writes about in television and movies is not a new phenomenon. It is not a short-term aberration in the entertainment and news industry. It has been prevalent for decades. Over time the names may change, but the heritage usually remains the same. If anything, the Jewish power in media continues to consolidate and grow. Jewish publications themselves often boast about their power for their own readers.

Even though it is hard to imagine now, Gentiles originated America’s film industry. Thomas Edison patented many of the early cameras and projection techniques and launched the first major studio. The man who pioneered the modern movie was D. W. Griffith, a brilliant director whose techniques and films are still studied by film classes around the world. His silent classic Birth of a Nation10 held the title of most-watched movie in the world until Gone with the Wind.11

Birth of a Nation is a film version of The Clansman, a novel by Southern writer Thomas Dixon.12 The film depicted the fratricidal conflict of the War Between the States and the oppression of the White people during the "Reconstruction" era. It portrays the Klan as a heroic organization that freed the South from the violence and tyranny of Black and carpetbagger rule and paved the way for reuniting the American nation.

When Birth of a Nation appeared, Jewish organizations actually went into the courts attempting to ban the film in a number of major cities, and they applied financial pressure on theaters to keep it from playing. A special showing of the film in the White House garnered an enthusiastic review by President Woodrow Wilson and initiated an irrepressible groundswell of support. The Jewish forces in the fledgling film industry realized that it was far more effective to control the film industry from the inside than to have to fight rearguard actions to suppress films that they did not want the American people to see.

The attempted Jewish banning of Birth of a Nation was not the first or the last attempt at Jewish censorship in America. Many people are surprised when they learn that Jewish groups actually were able to ban a play by the greatest writer of English literature: William Shakespeare. Performing Shakespeare’s Merchant of Venice13 became forbidden in New York City in the early years of the 20th century at the behest of the Jewish community, which claimed that it was anti-Semitic.

In the 1990s, the Public Broadcasting System (PBS) did a running series of all Shakespeare’s plays that included Merchant of Venice. A long editorial introduction attempted to condition the audience into interpreting the play as sympathetic to Shylock, the central Jewish character who demanded the Gentile’s "pound of flesh." The lines in which Shylock defends himself in court, pleading "If you prick a Jew doth he not bleed," were emphasized to encourage the viewer to interpret the play as favorable to Jews. Interestingly, the Jews made no such interpretation of the play when they intolerantly argued for making performance of the play illegal. Recently, the Canadian Jewish News reported an attempt by Jews to suppress the play in a Canadian school district.14

As they have gone from outsiders to now thoroughly dominating the Western governmental and media establishment, many Jews have shifted from strong defenders of free speech to some of its most willful suppressers.

The Jewish students who dominated the "free-speech" movement at Berkeley in the mid-’60s sang the praises of free speech for the purpose of inviting to campus the likes of the filthy-mouthed and repugnant AllenGinsberg and the violent, openly Communist, black revolutionary Angela Davis. Today they attempt to silence anyone who dares to speak before a student audience on the issues raised in this book.

In some cases they have reverted to similar tactics to their campaign against Merchant of Venice. In 1976 a national Black talk show broadcast on PBS, Black Perspectives on the News, invited me to Philadelphia for an appearance. After the taping, but before the show aired, the Anti-Defamation League and other Jewish organizations discovered that I mentioned the historically well-documented Jewish role in the Colonial slave trade. Jewish activists Sol Rosen, Harry Bass, and Peter Minchuck sought an injunction in the Common Pleas Court in Philadelphia, asking the judge to censor the program. The Jewish judge, Stanley Greenberg, issued an order demanding that the program not be aired until the tape was delivered to him and "approved." Luckily, the First Amendment Coalition and attorney David Marion appealed the decision to the State Supreme Court and won. However, the Jewish methods of censorship were by no means exhausted.

Jewish organizations then went nationwide in an attempt to suppress the show in each individual PBS affiliate in each city the program was to be broadcast. In a massive campaign of intimidation, Jews wrote and called local PBS stations, threatening a cutoff of donations and public support if they aired the show. If that did not work, opponents promised, picketing, harassment, and even violence against the stations. By the time they finished their dirty work, the original program aired on only a small percentage of the local PBS stations. Furthermore, the stations that did have the temerity to air the original hour show — immediately followed it with a special program attacking my positions and my character without allowing me to respond.

An example of quiet suppression, from among many I could cite, was my experience with the Tomorrow Show with Tom Snyder in 1974. The Tomorrow Show was a late-night talk show that went into serious topics rather than vapid celebrity banter. I did not fit the stereotypical image of the racist that host Tom Snyder had expected, and during the program he surprised me when, on camera, he referred to me as "intelligent, articulate, and charming." Snyder laughed heartily at my witticisms and repeatedly stated on air that I would soon be back on the show. His last words on the program were "David Duke will be back here."

Three days later Snyder’s staff called to set up the follow-up show. They said that I would appear along with a Black civil-rights leader, a Jewish rabbi, a liberal Catholic, and a Protestant clergyman. Flight and hotel reservations were made, and I received a confirmation letter from the show. Only three days before the planned taping of the program, a staff member called and told me that she was sorry, but the program had been forced to cancel my appearance. I asked her why, and she confided in me that the Jewish executives at NBC had sternly informed the program that "David Duke will never again appear on the Tomorrow Show."

The program went on as scheduled, but my detractors were the only guests. They denigrated me for the entire hour with cheap insults. The rabbi, evidently well versed in Freudian psychology, attributed my racial beliefs to "sexual frustration." And so it went. The media masters had presented four high priests of egalitarianism and silenced the opposition.

The masters of the media are also adept in the dishonest remaking of classic works. Louis Mayer and David O. Selznick’s film classic Gone with the Wind provides an excellent example of story-manipulation. I read Margaret Mitchell’s novel while still in junior high school. But when I first saw the film version during high school, I noticed important differences. In the novel a Black man assaults the heroine, Scarlett O’Hara, arousing the Ku Klux Klan — which Mitchell portrays heroically — to ride for justice. In the Mayer-Selznick movie version, it is a White man who tries to rape Scarlett and a Black man who rushes to her rescue! There is no heroic ride of the KKK. In fact, the Klan disappears from the story altogether. Later I read how the producers purposefully made the change for political reasons.

Mitchell’s real feelings on the KKK were explicitly written in Gone with the Wind:

But these ignominies and dangers were as nothing compared with the peril of white women… It was the large number of outrages on women and the ever-present fear for the safety of their wives and daughters that drove Southern men to cold and trembling fury and caused the Ku Klux Klan to spring up overnight. And it was against this nocturnal organization that the newspapers of the North cried out most loudly, never realizing the tragic necessity that brought it into being… Here was the astonishing spectacle of half a nation attempting, at the point of bayonet, to force upon the other half the rule of Negroes, many of them scarcely one generation out of the African jungles…15

A film that angered me was Stanley Kramer’s Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner.16 A beautiful young daughter of wealthy parents, portrayed by Spencer Tracy and Katherine Hepburn, wants to marry a brilliant Black doctor, played by Sidney Poitier. The film makes clear that such a marriage creates some problems but it is the morally right thing to do. Of course, Mr. Kramer produced no films promoting Jewish intermarriage with Gentiles. Many years later Newsweek magazine dubbed Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner an "educational film for White Americans, who seeing their screen heroes surrender their daughter to a black male, would feel less compunction in doing the same." 17

To catalogue the host of anti-White films produced by the Hollywood establishment would be a monumental task, but I can offer some pertinent examples. David Wolper, an ardent supporter of Israel, produced many anti-White programs, including the television miniseries Roots.18 Marvin Chomsky, John Erman, David Greene, and Gilbert Moses directed the much-touted docudrama. Roots was perhaps the second most promoted and watched miniseries ever aired on television (only the Holocaust 19 miniseries had a larger audience due to its incredible media promotion). Roots found its own roots in Alex Haley’s book of the same title. Roots is a historically misleading book and film that produced widespread Black hatred against Whites and self-hatred and guilt among many Whites.20

Interestingly, Jewish writer Harold Courlander sued Alex Haley for plagiarism. In writing a supposedly historically accurate book dealing with the African roots of American Negroes, Haley had stolen whole sections of Courlander's fictional novel called The African.21 Haley affirmed his plagiarism in agreeing to an out-of-court settlement with Courlander for $500,000. At the height of Roots’ popularity, most Americans never became aware that Haley based part of Roots on a work of fiction.

Freedom Road was another fantasy palmed off to a trusting public as an accurate portrayal of Southern Reconstruction.23 The All-Movie Guidebook, for instance, lists it as an "historical film." When it came out in 1979, many public-school history and civic classes assigned it for homework. Muhammed Ali starred in the film as Gideon Jackson, a former slave who enters politics and forms an unlikely Southern coalition of freed Blacks and poor Whites. He is then elected to the U.S. Senate from South Carolina and finally leads his poor White and Black followers in a struggle against their wealthy White oppressors until slain in a shootout with the Ku Klux Klan.

History records that there has never been a Black senator from South Carolina. Only two Black senators served during Reconstruction, both from Mississippi, and both died of natural causes. Freedom Road takes on added perspective when one learns that the producer of this historical fantasy was Zev Braun, and the director was J’an K’adir. "Chosenite" Howard Fast wrote the original fictional novel. Fast also happened to be a longtime member of the American Communist Party, and his autobiography is titled Being Red.24 Teachers, probably unaware of Fast’s ardent Communism, ordered millions of public-school children to watch and do reports on this alleged "docudrama." Is it any wonder that so many White Americans have such a distorted view of their history and of the race issue? Could one expect less, knowing that they are getting a Communist interpretation of American history?

An ad for a TV movie featuring OJ Simpson as a Black cop fighting White crime - the TV world as compared to the real world.

Not surprisingly, the most slavishly promoted miniseries of all time was also the most important film of all to the Jews: The Holocaust. The film was a thoroughly Jewish production. It was directed by Roots’ director Marvin Chomsky. Gerald Green wrote the screenplay. Morton Gould composed the music. The producers were Robert Berger and Herbert Brodkin. TV Guide remarked that during filming in Europe, the writer’s father died. Rather than return home for his funeral, Green felt he was honoring his rabidly pro-Zionist father by staying in Europe to work on The Holocaust. For a dozen hours, the film, a work of extreme ethnic hatred, portrayed Germans and other Eastern Europeans as either bloodthirsty or spineless, and of course, it portrayed every Jew as a paragon of virtue, love, and kindness. Never had a television production received more advance coverage or more praise than The Holocaust. Jewish-run publications and pundits acted as though it was the most important piece of drama in the history of cinema.

While I was still in college, I attended a so-called Black-exploitation film called Farewell Uncle Tom. I read about the film before its showing in New Orleans, where it played in a mostly Black movie house downtown. Expecting a difficult situation, I drove down from Baton Rouge with two of my bravest and most dedicated LSU friends. In 90 minutes, at a matinee filled with Blacks, my friends and I received an emotional and graphic education on the heinous impact of the Hollywood anti-White movies.

Set in the antebellum South, the film portrayed slave life as an orgy of White mutilation, starvation, murder, and rape of Black men and women. A Black revolt occurs, and the screen erupts with revenge-minded Blacks hacking to death White men, women, and children. With each bloody outrage, the audience howled with approval. "Right on!" some screamed. "Rape the Bitch!. . . Kill 'em!" The Black crowd laughed and cheered during the goriest scenes of mutilation, rape, and murder.

To make sure the film’s point was clear to its patrons, the film’s ending flashed to the present day, showing afro-wearing Black men in leather jackets and sunglasses, sneaking into the bedroom of a White couple. The camera depicts the couple’s horror as the attackers hack them to death with a hatchet. In slow motion, the hatchet falls repeatedly, splattering blood and brains across the room. Even after 20 years, I vividly recall the film and the raw hatred it engendered in the Black audience.

At the sight of the murders, the audience worked itself into frenzy. As soon as the credits appeared, my friends and I, sitting in the rear of the theater, grabbed our coats and left quickly. We were somber as we drove back to LSU because we knew that Farewell Uncle Tom was intended to incite Blacks to murder and rape Whites across America.

In researching the film, I discovered that Cannon Releasing Corporation had released it and that Cannon’s president was Dennis Friedland. His associates included Marvin Friedlander, Thomas Israel, James Rubin, and Arthur Lipper. I found out later from a film review that most of the Jews involved with the White-hating film actually had their names removed from the films credits.

The time I spent in that dark theater touched my emotions so powerfully that I swore to myself and to God that I would make whatever sacrifices I must to someday stop the brutal attacks against our flesh and blood as symbolized in that hateful film. I also resolved to stand up against filmmakers who create a climate of anti-White hatred.

During my hundreds of interviews over the years, whenever I mentioned Jewish media domination, my interrogators first would deny the Jewish preponderance of power. Then, when that defense sank beneath a sea of facts, they acted shocked that anyone could even suggest that Jews might use their media power for their own advantage.

The domination of America’s news and entertainment media is so obvious that some Jewish media have begun to acknowledge it, but they suggest the Jewish domination makes no real impact on content. The cover of the August 1996 issue of Moment magazine was blazoned with the headline, "Jews Run Hollywood, So What?" The article, written by well-known Jewish film critic Michael Medved, includes the following comments: "It makes no sense at all to try to deny the reality of Jewish power and prominence in popular culture. Any list of the most influential production executives at each of the major movie studios will produce a heavy majority of recognizably Jewish names." Medved reports about how Walt Disney studios hires only "highly paid Jewish moguls" such as Jeffery Katzenberg, Michael Ovitz, and Joe Roth as producers. He goes on to state that:

The famous Disney organization, which was founded by Walt Disney, a gentile Midwesterner who allegedly harboured anti-Semitic attitudes, now features Jewish personnel in nearly all its most powerful positions.25

Interestingly, in spite of the attempts to besmirch the name of Walt Disney as an anti-Semite, his films were the most morally spiritually uplifting and educational in the industry. All this while Michael Eisner’s new Disney and its subsidiaries continue to make anti-Christian and sexually degenerate films such as The Priest26 and The Crying Game.27

Not only do the Jewish producers create a plethora of pro-Israel and pro-Jewish propaganda along with their anti-Christian, anti Gentile hate films and documentaries, they are careful to monitor films made by both Jews and Gentiles. For example, Jewish censors of the fact-based film, Seven Years in Tibet, felt that the main character, an ex-Nazi explorer from Austria, was not repentant enough about his past. They had the filmmaker invent a repentance scene and insert it into the "true story." 28

Michael Medved writes in his article that "Jewish writers and directors employ unquestionably flattering depictions of Jews for audiences that react with sympathy and affection." It goes without saying that they depict those who oppose Jewish supremacism as thoroughly evil.

A 1998 made-for-television film documentary aired on the Arts & Entertainment cable network boasted of the preeminent Jewish role in media and the shaping of our society to their purposes. It was made by Elliot Halpern & Simcha Jacobvici Productions, and written and directed by Simcha Jacobvici. The documentary tells how Jews overcame the Gentile filmmakers such as Thomas Edison and D.W. Griffith, and gradually replaced their traditional American themes. Movies such as Griffith’s Birth of a Nation which honored our White heritage, became replaced with paeans to the immigrant and multiracialism. They interview Jewish author Neil Gabler, who frankly tells how they replaced the "real" America.

They created their own America, an America which is not the real America…But ultimately this shadow America becomes so popular and so widely disseminated that its images and its values come to devour the real America. And so the grand irony of all of Hollywood — is that Americans come to define themselves by the shadow of America that was created by the Eastern European Jewish immigrants who weren’t permitted in the precincts of the real America.

The narrator goes on to say that the Hollywood Jews became almost godlike in their power and set up a system to raise their prestige in the eyes of Americans.

Where there were new Gods there must be new idols. So, the studio heads began a movie guild with the lofty title of The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. It was Mayer’s brilliant idea to create the Oscars where the movie moguls’ guild honor themselves by giving each other awards. In this way, they went from being a group of immigrant Jews to award-winning American producers.

Jewish power is such that they can make craven even the greatest of Hollywood icons. During an appearance on the Larry King television show, actor Marlon Brando said that "Hollywood is run by Jews. It is owned by Jews." Brando contended that Jews are always depicted as humorous, kind, loving, and generous while they slander every other racial group, "but are ever so careful to ensure that there is never any negative image of the Kike."29

Jewish groups came down hard on Brando, stating in their press releases that they would see to it that he "would never work again." No one in the Jewish press seemed to notice that the threat simply validated Brando’s observation of their unchallenged media power. Brando was so intimidated that he had to arrange an audience with Wiesenthal himself. Brando cried and got on his knees and kissed Wiesenthal’s hands, begging for forgiveness for his truth-telling. Wiesenthal absolved him for his sin, and Brando has said nothing but positive things about Jews ever since.

There can be no renewal for our people until that kind of intimidating power is broken. No regeneration of our society can occur until our people again have true freedom of speech and press.

Once I discovered the Jewish power over the American media, I resolved never to surrender my freedom of speech in deference to it, no matter what it would cost me. I became determined to oppose the media masters who seek to destroy our way of life and our very life form. I am confident that in time my kinsmen will likewise rise up in defiance rather than kneeling in dishonor — like Marlon Brando — to our would be masters.

About Me

All material published for educational purposes under Fair Use Doctrine.
Warning: Some commentaries may include profanity. I offer my apologies in advance for those who may be offended by the harsh language in response to outrageous lies.